Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Frazzled wrote:
The BG in this instance attacked another group because of their religion.

The who?

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively we could just jack up the punishment for all vandalism to the same two years.

Why would we want to do that?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
The BG in this instance attacked another group because of their religion.

The who?

No not the Who. Although lame despite my Wife's protestations, the Who are not the ones at fault here. But they are lame.

 Frazzled wrote:
Alternatively we could just jack up the punishment for all vandalism to the same two years.

Why would we want to do that?

 Frazzled wrote:
No not the Who. Although lame despite my Wife's protestations, the Who are not the ones at fault here. But they are lame.

Who are the BG?
Them?

 Frazzled wrote:
To reduce acts of vandalism of course. Maybe a good Singaporean caning instead?

Why would be want to do that?

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Wait, there is no intent stated at all in your example.

Legal intents, or, in the jargon, mens rea, can be pretty minimalists. The intent of an assault, as an example, can be ¨recklessness¨.

You just described different punishment based on the identity of the victim. And yes, there are but not like that. It is beating a cop or a representative of the state that will earn you a harsher sentence by law.

Not caring about assaulting certain people with certain characteristics, such as race, religion, age, etc, is currently something that Laws does find worse than not caring about assaulting anyone. It may be weird, but it usually tend to reflect the fact that those peoples are especially vulnerable to violence. And most judicial systems allow for a variation of lenght and gravity of the sentence, to reflect particularities of the case.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
This is completely false. Unless religions do include only jainism and quakers and a very few select others.

Please point me at the many established western religions where the clergy regularly engage in war and conflict. It's called a life of contemplation for a reason.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
How many examples in history are there of a Church or a Christian state “turning the other cheek”, really? Or, for that matter, of an Islamic one. And how many examples of them doing the exact opposite?
Seems like a textbook example of hypocrisy, here.

That religious organizations, or States, do not, as organizations, follow the rules they impose on their constituents is so banal, it is harldy worth pointing out, and of no consequence on the question. The entire social fabric of humanity is laced with hipocrisy. And in this case, the hipocrisy of the organization is without importance in regards to the impact a desecration has on the followers of that religion.

Remembering that I do not believe this to actually be a desecrating act of any significance.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
No not the Who. Although lame despite my Wife's protestations, the Who are not the ones at fault here. But they are lame.

Who are the BG?
Them?

Alas can't open youtube at work.

 Frazzled wrote:
To reduce acts of vandalism of course. Maybe a good Singaporean caning instead?

Why would be want to do that?

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
Wait, there is no intent stated at all in your example.

Legal intents, or, in the jargon, mens rea, can be pretty minimalists. The intent of an assault, as an example, can be ¨recklessness¨.

You just described different punishment based on the identity of the victim. And yes, there are but not like that. It is beating a cop or a representative of the state that will earn you a harsher sentence by law.

Not caring about assaulting certain people with certain characteristics, such as race, religion, age, etc, is currently something that Laws does find worse than not caring about assaulting anyone. It may be weird, but it usually tend to reflect the fact that those peoples are especially vulnerable to violence. And most judicial systems allow for a variation of lenght and gravity of the sentence, to reflect particularities of the case.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
This is completely false. Unless religions do include only jainism and quakers and a very few select others.

Please point me at the many established western religions where the clergy regularly engage in war and conflict. It's called a life of contemplation for a reason.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:
How many examples in history are there of a Church or a Christian state “turning the other cheek”, really? Or, for that matter, of an Islamic one. And how many examples of them doing the exact opposite?
Seems like a textbook example of hypocrisy, here.

That religious organizations, or States, do not, as organizations, follow the rules they impose on their constituents is so banal, it is harldy worth pointing out, and of no consequence on the question. The entire social fabric of humanity is laced with hipocrisy. And in this case, the hipocrisy of the organization is without importance in regards to the impact a desecration has on the followers of that religion.

Remembering that I do not believe this to actually be a desecrating act of any significance.

You know how much impact there was? None. The kid di nothing wrong. He was rude, but that's not illigal.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

You know how much impact there was? None. The kid di nothing wrong. He was rude, but that's not illigal.

Which is why I took the time twice to say that I did not consider this an act of desecration. I'm arguing for desecration laws, not for the prescribed punishment of this dumbass.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:

 Co'tor Shas wrote:

You know how much impact there was? None. The kid di nothing wrong. He was rude, but that's not illigal.

Which is why I took the time twice to say that I did not consider this an act of desecration. I'm arguing for desecration laws, not for the prescribed punishment of this dumbass.

But what if someone made another pisschrist? It's the same thing. It is desecration, but it's not wrong and has no impact on members of Christianity.

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
Please point me at the many established western religions

You are only giving me the choose between Christianity and Christianity here .

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
where the clergy regularly engage in war and conflict.

Please point to me the many established vegetarian/racist/wargaming organizations that regularly engage in war and conflict. Really, the organizations that do regularly engage in war and conflict are the rare exception and not the norm. Not being one of them does not make you a great pacifist that is morally laudable…

 Kovnik Obama wrote:
That religious organizations, or States, do not, as organizations, follow the rules they impose on their constituents is so banal, it is harldy worth pointing out, and of no consequence on the question. The entire social fabric of humanity is laced with hipocrisy. And in this case, the hipocrisy of the organization is without importance in regards to the impact a desecration has on the followers of that religion.

So basically, you are saying you just need to pretend to adhere to superior moral values to deserve a higher protection even if you do break those at every occasion? And that is not even mentioning how the Quran and the life of Muhammad goes completely against “turning the other cheek”, as well as the old testament, so… hardly a valid argument.

ON the positive this time we could publicly shame them on Youtube, Facebook, and Twitter, and lead boycotts against anyone who supported him. Aint 2014 grand?

 Frazzled wrote:
Alas can't open youtube at work.

Bee Gees - Stayin' Alive (1977)

 Frazzled wrote:
You're not pro crime are you?

I am!

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 Frazzled wrote:
Alas can't open youtube at work.

Bee Gees - Stayin' Alive (1977)

 Frazzled wrote:
You're not pro crime are you?

I am!

two Internet shots of Pyrat rum for you sir!

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
But what if someone made another pisschrist? It's the same thing. It is desecration, but it's not wrong and has no impact on members of Christianity.

As an artist, Serrano was in a good position to argue that the act of fabrication of Piss Christ was intended as an expression of freedom toward religion, which is how many Christians saw it. There was no public outcry outside of the one agitated by Senators D'Amato & Helms.

The kid could argue it was part of a performance, but judges usually aren't that gullible.

 Co'tor Shas wrote:
Another obviously unconstitutional law that a state will waste lots of money defending.

YUP. The ACLU should be all over this.

 Frazzled wrote:
Vandalizing an object is not exercising your religion.

And in the case of the OP, the object was not vandalised.

In fact you are effectively targetting religions with theis specific type of vandalism.

Again, not vandalism. Making something "spiritually unclean" is not vandalism; and as already noted, the church/group involved don't seem to have an issue with what occurred, so clearly they don't see the acts that took place to have desecrated their lawn ornament.

in effecte the offender is a bigot.

Religious types telling me that I am going to hell, or not going to heaven, or telling me that they will pray to me are annoying and contradict my "religious beliefs" (or rather lack of them). I am targeted specifically because I do not share the faith of whatever person or group is infringing on my right to go about unmolested. My letter box is regularly polluted with unwanted religious fliers telling me about the joys of jebus from "bigots" who can't accept others believing something different to them.

On the opposite end of the spectrum we have a bunch of Christians fighting for months to prevent a "black mass" and protesting when it was held.

Background: Some fancy Satanists decided to rend a public area in a city owned performing arts center to hold a black mass. Various Christian groups and clergy spend the last few months fighting every which way to force the city to kick them out because "that stuff is offensive to us" only to be told by the city that anybody can rent the space for any reason and that being Satanists isn't a valid reason to stop them.

End results:

Satanists follow all the rules, have a small ceremony, go home.

Christians throw a big fit, give Satanists a ton of free press, get arrested, and call in a bomb thread.

Meanwhile this pro-separation of Church and State devout Christian just shakes his head at the antics of my fellow Christians...

As an extreme denotee of the separation of church and state, I have no problem with either the satanists 'sataning" or the Jebus freaks protesting.

I just wanna see someone lose it on the View and have their head explode. Its a dream I have.

 Frazzled wrote:
As an extreme denotee of the separation of church and state, I have no problem with either the satanists 'sataning" or the Jebus freaks protesting.

It just makes me facepalm that the "good" guys (in the eyes of the Jebus crowd) ended up including the folks that were breaking the rules and the "bad" guys (again, in the eyes of the Jebus crowd) are the ones that didn't break any rules.

I don't have a problem with the protests, and other than two arrests and the bomb thread almost every single person protested within the law and in a peaceful manner. Me personally, as a Christian, I wouldn't protest against them being allowed to have the black mass. I might not like that one was held, but I do like that the separation was there and they had the ability to have it and that I have the same ability to have a prayer group there to do a follow up exorcism if I wanted to rent the same space.

Edit:

To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in. I just find it ironic that they are protesting with the argument that "Christianity is what this country stands for" while actively trying to supress the free exercise of religion. Being able to hold the black mass was more in line with the ideals of the Constitution than the argument of the protesters IMO.

Maybe putting the "fear" in the kid to stop screwing around.

 d-usa wrote:
I might not like that one was held

Why? At least those people were not inducted into it from childhood, it is a conscious decision they formed by themselves!

 d-usa wrote:
To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in.

You're fine with people protesting against others practising their religion?

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in.

You're fine with people protesting against others practising their religion?

Well, yeah. As long as it's a peaceful protest, it's just people exercising freedom of speech and assembly.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in.

You're fine with people protesting against others practising their religion?

Why bother asking a question when you already decided to ignore the answer?

t just makes me facepalm that the "good" guys (in the eyes of the Jebus crowd) ended up including the folks that were breaking the rules and the "bad" guys (again, in the eyes of the Jebus crowd) are the ones that didn't break any rules.

I don't have a problem with the protests, and other than two arrests and the bomb thread almost every single person protested within the law and in a peaceful manner. Me personally, as a Christian, I wouldn't protest against them being allowed to have the black mass. I might not like that one was held, but I do like that the separation was there and they had the ability to have it and that I have the same ability to have a prayer group there to do a follow up exorcism if I wanted to rent the same space.

Edit:

To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in. I just find it ironic that they are protesting with the argument that "Christianity is what this country stands for" while actively trying to supress the free exercise of religion. Being able to hold the black mass was more in line with the ideals of the Constitution than the argument of the protesters IMO.

People are allowed to protest for all kinds of things. It's a pretty well established rule here. I can be supportive of their right to protest without endorsing or even liking the message.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
I might not like that one was held

Why? At least those people were not inducted into it from childhood, it is a conscious decision they formed by themselves!

Because I'm a grown adult who also was not inducted into my religion from childhood and who has a different opinion about a Black Mass than other people. Of course, as I have made clear over and over again, I am 100% behind their right to do something I might not like and will defend their right to do so.

 d-usa wrote:
and who has a different opinion about a Black Mass than other people.

What is your opinion on it? I think it was my original question. Apart from just “I think it is bad for undisclosed reasons, even though I support their right to have one”.

 SilverMK2 wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
To claify: I'm fine with the protests, even though I wouldn't join in.

You're fine with people protesting against others practising their religion?

Sure if done legally. Thats Da First Amendment Baby.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

 d-usa wrote:
and who has a different opinion about a Black Mass than other people.

What is your opinion on it? I think it was my original question. Apart from just “I think it is bad for undisclosed reasons, even though I support their right to have one”.

To keep it brief and without trying to turn this thread into a theological argument:

Like I said, I am a Christian, so I see this situation as a form of spiritual warfare. I know that the Church of Satan doesn't really see themselves as evangelizing for Satan and that that mindset of spiritual warfare between Christians and Satan is pretty one-sided in that regard. The organizer for the event did give interviews that his goal was to get people away from God, but from the Satanists that I know that is not something that they pursue. I think his "we have to free people from the oppression of God" statements were more about drumming up free publicity by stirring up the masses (who fell for it) than any actual satanist theology.

Both groups, the Satanists and the Christians, made use of their right to assemble, their right of free speech, and their right to practice their religion. But only one group used those rights to hassle the other group and to try to stop them. So "my team" ended up looking stupid here IMO. Like I said, I support their right to do what they did and if the Satanists wanted to hang out and protest outside the Catholic Church I would support that too. But I don't support the message of "you shouldn't be able to have a black mass in this building".

I think the best approach would have been to for the Christians to do the exact same thing as the Satanists: assemble (outside the building if they want to), speak about their faith, and practice their religion (have a prayer vigil, have a regular mass, pray for the people attending the black mass). They could have done all that without having to actually protest "against" the black mass and without trying to stop them. They could have come and left without bothering the Satanists just as the Satanists came and left without bothering the Christians.

 d-usa wrote:
Like I said, I am a Christian, so I see this situation as a form of spiritual warfare. I know that the Church of Satan doesn't really see themselves as evangelizing for Satan and that that mindset of spiritual warfare between Christians and Satan is pretty one-sided in that regard. The organizer for the event did give interviews that his goal was to get people away from God, but from the Satanists that I know that is not something that they pursue. I think his "we have to free people from the oppression of God" statements were more about drumming up free publicity by stirring up the masses (who fell for it) than any actual satanist theology.

So, your first sentence seems to imply this is about trying to convince other people about which believes are right, but all the rest goes contrarily to that. I am a bit confused.

 d-usa wrote:
Both groups, the Satanists and the Christians, made use of their right to assemble, their right of free speech, and their right to practice their religion. But only one group used those rights to hassle the other group and to try to stop them. So "my team" ended up looking stupid here IMO. Like I said, I support their right to do what they did and if the Satanists wanted to hang out and protest outside the Catholic Church I would support that too. But I don't support the message of "you shouldn't be able to have a black mass in this building".

I think the best approach would have been to for the Christians to do the exact same thing as the Satanists: assemble (outside the building if they want to), speak about their faith, and practice their religion (have a prayer vigil, have a regular mass, pray for the people attending the black mass). They could have done all that without having to actually protest "against" the black mass and without trying to stop them. They could have come and left without bothering the Satanists just as the Satanists came and left without bothering the Christians.

All of this is completely outside of the scope of my question.

 Hybrid Son Of Oxayotl wrote:

So, your first sentence seems to imply this is about trying to convince other people about which believes are right,

How about this:

You go and explain to the thread how "I believe..." implies that I am trying to convince other people about which believes are right.

but all the rest goes contrarily to that. I am a bit confused.

That's because you are looking for something that isn't there.

All of this is completely outside of the scope of my question.

It's really not, since it appears that you are looking for a certain argument and the paragraph sinks it before you even make it.

I say "I believe...", then I go on to say "they believe...", then I don't make any statements about who is right or wrong and make it clear that both groups should be able to believe what they want and practice their religion.

 d-usa wrote:
That's because you are looking for something that isn't there.

I agree: apparently the answer to my question was not in your message.

Here is the kind of answer I am looking for, but with the black mass replaced by some meeting from, say, the national front, because really I could not care less for the black mass:
“I believe it is bad because I think not only the national front's economic proposition are unrealistic and would drag us down to ruin, but I also think their conservative stance on moral issues would have a very negative effect on many people's lives”. This does not mean I do not think every political party should be able to hold meeting, of course they should be able to do so. But it gives arguments about why I think those from the national front are not a good thing. So, why do you think black mass are bad things? Do you think they are empowering Satan, or something?

I already answered your question, sorry it wasn't an answer that was useful to you.

Feel free to answer why you think that "I believe..." implies that I am trying to convince other people about which believes are right.