Freedom Of Thought Not Allowed Here

[oldr_n_wsr]

Could the remaining Boston Bomber suspect be tried under the "hate crimes" statute?

[Big RR]

I think a murder charge actually multiple murder charges) makes a lot more sense.

[Sean]

So what the US has is not 'Freedom of Religion' but 'Freedom to Practice the Required Bits of one's Religion'.

I see...

[Big RR]

But not the naughty bits...

[Scooter]

So prosecute the fire bombing, for which the penalty is quite severe.

The firebombing is one crime. The threat of firebombing felt by every member of every other synagogue in the area is another, every bit as real as if a threat had been telephoned in.

One crime, one prosecution, possibly SEVERALseparate include crimes, as is usually the case with ad hominem crimes.

Which is of course precisely the way the overwhelming majority of hate crimes are prosecuted. First a determination of whether the accused is guilty of the underlying crime, then, as part of the same proceeding, a determination whether it constitutes a hate crime which will bring a sentencing enhancement with it. Once again, there are many aggravating factors that cause sentences to be increased; you have provided absolutely nothing to justify why the fact that something is a hate crime should not be one of those aggravating factors.

[rubato]

So what the US has is not 'Freedom of Religion' but 'Freedom to Practice the Required Bits of one's Religion'.

I see...

Proving only that struggling to make a coherent point does not guarantee success.


"Freedom to practice religion" means the freedom to do what your religion requires.


yrs,
rubato

[Sean]

So if I started a religion in the US and stated that my religion required me to have multiple wives that'd be okay?

I can't see it somehow...

I think that a more likely scenario would be that my religion would not be recognised as such if there were bits and bobs that the government didn't like.

[Gob]

So if I started a religion in the US and stated that my religion required me to have multiple wives that'd be okay?

Hmmmm... haven't you got enough on your plate as is? Glutton for punishment?

[dales]

BTDT........Sean.

Mormons tried that.

As I recall, it didn't work out too well for them.

[Sue U]

So if I started a religion in the US and stated that my religion required me to have multiple wives that'd be okay?

I can't see it somehow...

I think that a more likely scenario would be that my religion would not be recognised as such if there were bits and bobs that the government didn't like.

In the United States, our government doesn't "recognize" any religion. You can adopt or create a religion to believe anything you want. However, regardless of one's religious belief, no one's acts may violate neutral laws of general application, and no law may be made that is a pretext for discrimination on the basis of religion or that specifically targets a particularly religious practice. Further, the government may be forced to demonstrate a "compelling interest" in enforcing a law that inhibits a religious practice.

[Lord Jim]

Sue nails another one...

That's the second post she's written today that I agree with....

[dales]

When you're right, you're right........Jim.

Even our "mr. scientist" manages to score once in a blue moon.

[Econoline]

In the United States, our government doesn't "recognize" any religion. You can adopt or create a religion to believe anything you want. However, regardless of one's religious belief, no one's acts may violate neutral laws of general application, and no law may be made that is a pretext for discrimination on the basis of religion or that specifically targets a particularly religious practice. Further, the government may be forced to demonstrate a "compelling interest" in enforcing a law that inhibits a religious practice.

[Sue U]

Sue nails another one...

That's the second post she's written today that I agree with....

I must be going soft.

[Lord Jim]

Sue nails another one...

That's the second post she's written today that I agree with....

I must be going soft.

Well, if you want to make up for it Sue, you can always post something about repealing the 2 Amendment or the deadly threat posed by unpainted curbs...

[dgs49]

Hmmm...

Assuming the USSC shortly overturns major portions of DOMA, what "constitutional" principal could possibly justify preventing Mormons from taking plural wives (or husbands)?

Private behavior, voluntarily taken, harms no one...

And yet again, Rick Santorum was absolutely RIGHT. Gay marriage, plural marriage, incest (between consenting adults)...same constitutional arguments, same ultimate result.

[Sue U]

This has been explained to you in detail on several occasions. The fact that you and Rick Santorum choose to persist in a delusional view of constitutional jurisprudence is not an excuse for simply repeating the same baseless blather:
http://www.theplanbforum.com/forum/vie ... t=polygamy

For starters:

Legal recognition of plural marriages would give rise to a plethora of complications not present in marriages between two people only. For starters, determining who is married to whom - is one person married to all of the others, or is everyone married to everyone else, or some hybrid thereof? Are children born into the marriage automatically the legal children of all of the adults in the marriage, or do the non-biological parents have to adopt them? Is there any limit on the number of spouses that one person can claim as dependents for purposes of taxation, social assistance, employer-paid health benefits, etc.? What would happen if one spouse were to engage in physical violence with another? Would one or the other, or both, have to be removed from the family home, to the detriment of their relationships with all of the others? There are ten distinct relationships in a marriage of four people. That carries with it at least ten times the risk of a marital breakdown, in which case the state will have to use its power as arbiter. What would a marital breakdown mean? Does the desire of a single member of the marriage to leave it mean the marital bonds among all the others are dissolved, or not? Who would be responsible for financially supporting whom? Who would be responsible for paying child support, and for which children? These are questions for which it would be impossible to impose uniform answers to every plural marriage and which would therefore make it impossible to formulate a coherent body of family law.

viewtopic.php?f=12&t=5457&p=66308&hilit ... %2A#p66308

Moreover, because marriage is a status created by the state, the test of Constitutional conformance is whether the law involves invidious discrimination. If you can identify the improper discriminatory effect (race, religion, sex) of a law resrticting marriage to two people, you might be on to something.

The question is not whether states should allow plural marriage; it is whether it would be unconstitutional to prohibit it. If a state figured out a way to make it workable, there is nothing that would prevent the state from sanctioning plural marriages. However, if a state simply restricts marriage to two persons, there is no recognized constitutional basis to invalidate that law.

See also several additional posts by Scooter in the thread linked within.

[MajGenl.Meade]

... and then there's the question of pensions? Do presidential wives divide one pension amongst the six of them or does each acquire the full amount on the death of the former president (as he one day might be)? Any fool who bets on the one divided by six option is probaby going to buy a bridge in Brooklyn.

Zuma's wives have been regarded as a contentious issue since he became president in 2009, in particular the increased resources allocated as their "spousal budget". . . the budget for the presidential spousal support office was R15.5-million in the 2009/10 financial year . . . almost double the cost to taxpayers during Thabo Mbeki and Kgalema Motlanthe's terms in office.

Earlier this year, Presidency spokesman Mac Maharaj said it was "grossly incorrect" that taxpayers paid for the wives' upkeep.

"The spouses pay their own living or household expenses, be it food, mortgages, lights, water and so forth. Nothing is paid for by the state in the spouses' four households. They live in private homes. . . they were not remunerated by the state . . . there are, however, expectations that spouses will provide support to the president in the execution of his duties, and specifically so at state and official functions . . . (and they receive) reasonable administrative, logistical and other support ."

Zuma has married six times. His other current wives are Nompumelelo Ntuli and Thobeka Mabhija.

http://www.timeslive.co.za/thetimes/201 ... s-says-anc

[oldr_n_wsr]

is probaby going to buy a bridge in Brooklyn.

I already own it and it's not for sale.