DawgTalkers.net Forums DawgTalk Everything Else... Poor innocent Christians beat up at a gay-pride parade.

Hold up. This way to respond is just as logical. If you ignore the "re:who" when reading the forums then you would see my reply right under yours in its logical place as a direct response.

I believe where that notion comes from is that we have normalized a lot of what was once considered "deviant" behavior. Pre-marital sex, extra marital sex, out of wedlock pregnancy, BDSM, divorce, etc.. these are things that were once viewed as bringing shame on a family.... alcoholism and drug addiction were considered moral weakness instead of a "disease"... living off the government was once something viewed with great shame... and homosexuality was something you didn't even mention...

So yes, in many respects through civil rights, women's rights, gay rights, treatment of various ethnicities.... just general acceptance and tolerance of differences, we have certainly come a long way... but in some respects, I think it's perfectly reasonable to wonder if we haven't gone too far in some areas with making things "ok"...

I knew that would come up. You can't discuss, so let's label.

Oh, and you have the Gay/Redskin thing all wrong, but that isn't surprising.

I can't even stomach reading any more of the replies because it will all be the same nonsense. I see what is going on here and I spoke my peace. Enjoy deluding yourselves.

The Fall of Rome II.

IMO society has become less moral. I'm not saying that in the frame of "Rome is falling" reference. Instead, I think society has become less moral because there has been a massive decrease in commonly accepted ideas of what constitutes "right and wrong". Some of the areas are good, such is civil rights type issues, but others have had a much more detrimental impact on society as a whole. For example, people at large excused the fact that Michael Brown robbed a store, there were a couple of gang rapes that occurred this past Spring Break in FL on the beach with hundreds of people around, so on and so forth. In 6 years as a cop, I have yet to interview a suspect who robbed or stole to put food in their kids mouth. To this date they've all done it out of a sense of entitlement, that they are part of the 'have nots' and there for there is no moral compunction about walking in to Walamart ad taking something off the rack, there's no second thought to walking up on someone in the parking lot and pulling a gun on them for $40. And putting crime aside, you guys won't believe how many will witness a crime or even a bad car wreck and they just roll on because 'their stuff is more important'.

This country isn't on the decline because two gay people can get married, or someone wants to fly a Confederate flag. Its on the decline because there's this increasing movement that devalues the basic ways we ought to treat each other in a civil society.

Serious question: Should these people be charged with a Hate Crime? Why or why not?

My thinking is that if the standards are equally applied as they are supposed to be by law, then they should be charged with a hate crime. After all, they beat up someone for basically expressing their religious belief didn't they?

If it fits the description of the law, they should be charged like anyone else that is charged with that crime.

Now I'm not sure what a hate crime is? I never understood the need for an additional charges when a person already broke a standing law. What I have heard about it is in reference to things like burning down a historically black church and I there you have premeditated intent of action. I don't know if premeditation is part of the description of what makes up a hate crime? If so, the gay people didn't go to this parade with the intent to beat up christians, so premeditation is out.

probably.

i dunno if they could, seeing as how it was a protest and tempers naturally flare up, but IMO, that could be considered a hate crime.

Not always, sometimes, especially on busy threads, someone else could jump in between, while you are typing out your response.

And then I know I sometimes am reading through and during scrolling accidentally miss a post or 2 (especially when someone posts a rant novel I have no interest in reading ).

In busy topics, following multiple conversations and debates can be difficult without the correct "quick reply" tag, particularly when multiple conversations are happening and are closely related but separate.

This.

This looks like this.

On the night of October 6, 1998, Shepard met Aaron McKinney (then 22), and Russell Henderson (then 21), at the Fireside Lounge in Laramie, Wyoming.[6][7] It was decided that McKinney and Henderson would give Shepard a ride home.[8][9] McKinney and Henderson subsequently drove the car to a remote, rural area, and proceeded to rob, pistol-whip, and torture Shepard, tie him to a fence, and leave him to die. Media reports often contained the graphic account of the pistol-whipping and his fractured skull. It was reported that Shepard was beaten so brutally that his face was completely covered in blood, except where it had been partially washed clean by his tears.[10][11] Both of their girlfriends testified that neither McKinney nor Henderson was under the influence of drugs or alcohol at the time.[12][13] According to their court testimony, McKinney and Henderson discovered Shepard's address and intended to steal from his home, as well.

After the attack Aaron McKinney and Russell Henderson returned to town and McKinney picked a fight with two Hispanic youths, Emiliano Morales and Jeremy Herrara, leading to head wounds for both Morales and McKinney.[14] Police officer Flint Waters arrived at the scene, apprehended Henderson, and soon found the bloody gun and Shepard's shoes and credit card in McKinney's truck.[15] Henderson and McKinney later tried to persuade their girlfriends to provide alibis for them and help them dispose of evidence.[16]

Still tied to the fence, Shepard, who was in a coma, was discovered 18 hours after the attack by Aaron Kreifels, a cyclist who initially mistook Shepard for a scarecrow.[17] Reggie Fluty, the first police officer on the scene, found Shepard alive but covered in blood. The medical gloves issued by the Albany County Sheriff's Department were faulty, and Fluty's supply ran out. She decided to use her bare hands to clear an airway in Shepard's bloody mouth. A day later, she was informed that Shepard was HIV positive, and she may have been exposed due to cuts on her hands. After taking an AZT regimen for several months, she proved not to have been infected.[18] Judy Shepard later wrote she learned of her son's HIV status during his stay at the hospital following the attack.[19]

Shepard had suffered fractures to the back of his head and in front of his right ear. He experienced severe brainstem damage, which affected his body's ability to regulate his heart rate, body temperature, and other vital functions. There were also about a dozen small lacerations around his head, face, and neck. His injuries were deemed too severe for doctors to operate. Shepard never regained consciousness and remained on full life support. While he lay in intensive care, and in the days following the attack, candlelight vigils were held around the world.[20][21][22]

Shepard was pronounced dead at 12:53 a.m. on October 12, 1998, at Poudre Valley Hospital, in Fort Collins, Colorado.[23][24][25][26] He was 21 years old.[6]


Linky

The delusion was all your doing when you barged into the thread accusing posters of double standards, for justifying the gay people's violence, and insinuating that no one thought Christians should be able to protest.

I addressed why that wasn't what was taking place at all. But continue to pretend you "see what's going on here".

I told you it was bad paraphrasing. You could have corrected me and articulated the difference. You were upset about all the coverage the Sam situation was getting and made some sort of statement tying that into the Redskins name change. If you're not to busy being self-righteous about my labeling of your mindset (while you put plenty of words in others' mouths), I'd be genuinely interested to know your take on that.

Paraphrasing off memory wasn't fair. So I looked up the threads in question...



You said you didn't think it was heroic that Sam came out. That is a was a move to sort of beat the news to the punch. I could agree with that. But after stating...



That's going pretty far to downplay the first instance of someone in the NFL coming out before being drafted. One could have argued he could have tried to stay closeted so it wasn't 100% confirmed for some teams before suddenly it blowing up while he was on the team (assuming he would still have made one).

So, yeah, I stand by my "ax to grind" comment unless you prove otherwise. Discuss. Don't label. There could be a perfectly sensible explanation for your opinion on all of that. I'm interested to hear it with a greater sense of clarity.

Violence is always wrong. I don't support it against gays anymore than I do against anyone else. Anyone who commits violence that is not in self defence should be prosecuted to the full extent of the law.

For things to qualify as a "hate crime" its not so much about premeditation (that would fall under an aggravating factor... the difference between 1st and 2nd degree murder and Manslaughter). What qualifies something as a hate crime is if your motivations for committing the crime against a person are wholly or in part because of who they are.. black, gay, etc.

For example its one thing for an arsonist to set fire to a church simply because he gets off on burning things. Its another to set fire to the same church because black people go there.

so in your opinion since you're the only guy on here thats actually trained for this(not a jab, props), what do you think?

like....if they beat the person up for the sole reason that the person was a christian, i can see it as a hate crime. but if it was because the signs and what he was saying and such, would it just be assault?

it's confusing as hell.

Well, I assume the signs and things he was yelling were what he considered expressions of his faith. So if they assaulted him because they didn't like what he was saying... I think it would qualify. But also too, don't forget that depending on what the victim was saying to incite them... it may not excuse what they did, but it doesn't exactly make him a true victim either. How things are charged and how they are end up resolved in court can often be 2 different things. My guess is that you could charge the 'hate crime', but when its all said and done, they would be convicted of just an assault.

On a side, somewhat related note, I hate when cops or DA's over charge. Luckily its nothing I've witnessed all that often. I think there are two reasons for it: DA's do it because it gives them room to maneuver and cut a deal to avoid every case going to trial (which DOES save $$$). I can tell you from experience that it really sucks when you do a lot of work, even get hurt making an arrest, then the DA drops the charge to some BS stuff (for the above reason). Some more cynical cops will try to overcharge with the thinking that "It'll just get plead down in court anyway"... I've never been comfortable with that way of thinking because I think it just has a real risk of biting you in the back end. Its kind of hard to explain I guess. I just try to be consistent with how I go about my business. Now don't get me wrong, every once in awhile I'll come across someone who inspires me to nickel and dime them for everything I can (like this guy last week... multiple DWI's and a domestic abuser.. been dealing with him since I was a rookie..), and even if I do, they are still things that I can actually prove.

I really truly believe our legal system needs a through overhaul... not only getting certain laws off the books, but also going over and seriously re-classifying things.

Devil I like your way of thinking. I would love to have some of the more stupid laws removed from the books. I would also like to see the policy of confiscating things before a conviction is proven to stop happening.

I did notice from various video's of the Homosexuals beating Christians in the streets that the Homosexuals had those rainbow "Hate Flags" all over the place.

No one is stopping you from flying any flag you want.

Where did I say someone was stopping me? Reading Comprehension is a wonderful thing, give it a try. I only pointed out their "Hate Flag".
I think all people Who believe in hate should fly their Rainbow Hate Flag at all times and wear the Rainbow Hate Flag on their clothes so we can easily tell them from the good Americans who do not call for hate and sin as a way of life.

"Rainbow Hate Flag" is really cute passive-aggression.

You must have quite a collection.

The Christian Flag...

The Christophobes are on the march. Wear your helmets Christians, they are beating you in the streets.

"Christophobes"... lol. The Christian Victim Card... Poor mistreated Christians.

We are fast learners.

I'd love to see the ratio of gays harmed by Christians verses Christians harmed by gays. That would be entertaining.

Look it up, entertain yourself, there is a video at the beginning of this thread to help you with your Christophobia.

I actually am a Christian. I'm taught to love everyone. Even you.

A Christian who doesn't follow the words of his own God?
A Christian who supports sin as a Civil Right?
Are you sure you are a Christian? Perhaps some offshoot or something, huh?

Not really. I understand that religion and government are not the same. Government says we are all to be created equal and be afforded the same rights. That's the way the Constitution is set up. That's the law of the land whether anyone likes that or not.

Christians serve all sorts of sinners and I find it hypocritical of fellow Christians to pick one sin to use their religion to discriminate against one sin.

I follow the words of my own God. What I don't do is force my belief system upon others or use my beliefs to inflict pain and say nasty things to people who believe differently than I do.

I don't find those actions to be Christian at all.

We may not force our beliefs on others but you certainly are on record of supporting making sin acceptable and now law. You and other "Christians" have lead people to sin and did not encourage them to consider the costs to their relationship with God. Those who do not care about God are already lost but those on the edge have been encouraged by you to sin.

Christians are to love others but not support sin. The unbeliever can not understand the concept that a Christian can love the sinner but hate the sin. They can not understand we love the Homosexual but hate the sin of homosexual sex. We love the Adulterer but hate the sin of Adultery. That their sins are no more scarlet than our own sins but they are ALL sins nonetheless.
We will not put two men on top of a cake anymore than we would put a man and woman and his two lovers on an adulterers cake.

You continue to show that a Christian can support sin and you give your blessing to that sin. You say "I'm a Christian and I say just go ahead and sin in the name of equality.

This is not the actions of a Christian, however I do recall
that Judas Iscariot was also a Christian.

So you want a christian version of Sharia Law here in the US, where laws are based on Christianity.

You and Razor need to stop beating around the bush and just straight up say it.

The fact that I have a grasp of the difference between Church and state and how that impacts out laws does not make me Judas.

I believe the people who should be more ascribed to Judas are the ones who put Christians in a negative light, use their religious beliefs to further show intolerance and bigotry towards others who do not believe like themselves.

That has done more to turn people away from Christianity than anything I've posted here or believe.

I have neither endorced nor encouraged anyone to be gay. I do however understand the Constitution does not allow us to use religious beliefs to persecute others who do not believe as ourselves. You simply choose to ignore that while I do not.

Now, please understand me when I say that I have been called out on these Boards a thousand times for my stand on things and I have just called you out for your stand on things.

You owe me no answer or reply for I am no one.
You and God have your own relationship and that is what is important.

I tell you from my heart there is soon coming a time when our
Lord will separate the wheat from the chaff and I hope to find myself to be among the wheat, for without His sacrifice, I am but chaff.

Care to clarify just what the heck sin has to do with law, please?

Sin is the breaking of God's Law. The Supreme Court can not undo
God's Law. Man can not trump what God has made Law.

Exactly

What makes yours or 40s version of God's law correct? Even Jesus said give unto Caesar.

Just start a theocracy. That's where it seems the ideal end is for many.

We are to follow the laws of our Mothers just as we are our Heavenly Fathers as long as they are Godly, but as 40 said God law trumps man's ... "If" you believe God's Word

PROVERBS 6:20 "My son, keep your father’s command, And do not forsake the law of your mother."