Author Topic: Are You Atheist? (Read 18661 times)

Lorenzo · « **Reply #40 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:21:06 AM »

Civil rights abuses? because of religion? is this a joke? There is a freedom of speech and expression and there is a doctrine of the separation of the church and of the state. and where is the religious intolerance there?

let me talk to your friend, Civil law is a subject in Political Science in College and nothing reminds me of a civil case because of a comment on religion.

Is there a civil case which can be filed because of this comment? " Religion flies you into buildings."

??

I am serious. The ACLU and other civil rights groups are very active here in the United States, Roy.

Race, and Religion is a very sensitive topic and subject here.

Is it different/similar over there in Germany?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #41 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:23:05 AM »

but under which violation is done with this comment, " Religion flies you into buildings"?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #42 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:27:34 AM »

Roy, there was a conference of Muslim Individuals in Canada, and whn the Muslim-Americans were detained and asked questions for their involvement in said conference, the organization sued the US Department of Homeland Security for violating religious freedom and rights.

I read this several months ago.

Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6225-2005Apr20.html

some related articles for side reading:
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/16/local/me-aclu16

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #43 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:33:35 AM »

but under which violation is done with this comment, " Religion flies you into buildings"?

This question we should direct to an attorney or a law student.

I am a Medical Student, not a law student, and thus am not too well versed in American Law and its processes.

We need an American Law Student's opinion. That or any Attorney that is experienced in civil rights cases etc.

I'll see if I can get Gerald to join this forum, lol.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #44 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:33:38 AM »

Just tell me what is the violation for this comment?, " Religion flies you into buildings"?
and why is it offensive to Muslims?

I dont know where is the violation of religious rights in the above mentioned comment?

Is this racial, sectorally, class offensive?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #45 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:34:47 AM »

I promise you Lorenzo, there is no case which can be brought in court because of this comment.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #46 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:36:42 AM »

lol, we need an attorney in here to answer you questions, Roy.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #47 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:36:45 AM »

Roy, there was a conference of Muslim Individuals in Canada, and whn the Muslim-Americans were detained and asked questions for their involvement in said conference, the organization sued the US Department of Homeland Security for violating religious freedom and rights.

I read this several months ago.

Here is the link:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A6225-2005Apr20.html

some related articles for side reading:
http://articles.latimes.com/2006/may/16/local/me-aclu16

This is a totally different case Lorenzo. This is a clear violation of the right to religious freedom. Necessary to this right, is the exercise of functions to express religious activities ( in this case, a religious conference),

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #48 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:42:04 AM »

Thanks for the clarification, Roy. Question lang ko, does not that statement fall within religious discrimination?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #49 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:42:28 AM »

and why is it only offensive to Muslims lorenzo?

Did it mention anything about Muslims?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #50 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:44:55 AM »

Which statement? "Religion flies you into buildings?"
I think not. This is non-specific of a religious sector. This is only an atheistic opinion which does not discriminate any religion, religious practice, etc.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #51 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:46:16 AM »

Well, the flying into buildings, is very graphic for us Americans. 9/11 is very sensitive for us. And well, relating crashing of planes on a building--to the American--reminds of 9/11 and is demonizing said religion.

Which is indirectly pointing to Islam

Just a point.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #52 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:49:14 AM »

The right to religious freedom is one of the most important civil liberties, in the US and in any democratic country. Implied to religious freedom, is the freedom not to believe. This is why atheism is legal.

Important consideration is the separation of the Church and of the State. If some funds of the government are specifically alloted for a specific religious sector, this is religious discrimination.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #53 on:** March 06, 2009, 04:56:46 AM »

It may have malice, but still it depends on the person interpreting it. The court does not consider ambigous statements.

Remember Lorenzo. The right to self expression is equally important in the states. Flags are burned but no lawsuits are filed. A caricature of Mohammad is punned in Denmark ( a democratic country) but no lawsuit was filed. An artist in Austria made a mockery of the last suffer as an expression of his protest against the catholic church, but no lawsuit was filed.

But if you say that the Holocaust did not happened, then you will be jailed in Germany

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #54 on:** March 06, 2009, 05:08:20 AM »

Freedom of expression is guaranteed to us by th 1st Ammendment and reiterated in the Bill of Rights, but each action carries the notion of responsibility; an example is the Litigation against the Westboro Baptist Church by family members of dead soldiers (in this case, the WBC actually protested the funeral of deceased soldiers with shouts saying "God Damn America" and/or "Thank God For IEDs" "America Is A Sodomite Nation and Soldiers Will Burn In Hell")

Sure their 1st ammendment right guarantees them to talk, however, when one ovesteps the boundaries and starts harrassing other individuals, religious discrimination and or libel charges can be filed.

Organizations such as the ACLU and other Civil Rights Watch Groups are very active here in the United States, I reiterate. And that is why such signs like the one Ben shared with us will not fare positively here in the United States. And am sure, lawsuits will be filed on the organization that ever posts this on public transportation buses.

By on that act, the transportation company would also be subject to a lawsuit.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #55 on:** March 06, 2009, 05:15:15 AM »

What was the decision of the court?

Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #56 on:** March 06, 2009, 05:18:55 AM »

If a governt owned public busing company authorized a poster like the one Ben shared with us, here in the United States, that would already be a violation of the Title III of the Civil Rights Act.

In such a case, the ACLU and other large Civil Rights Groups would be drawn to said case. I guarantee you that.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #57 on:** March 06, 2009, 05:20:37 AM »

You were referring to hate speech law ( which is commonly practiced in the media), but this statement "Religion flies you into buildings!" is not a hate speech.

(a) The right to freedom of expression and opinions

The right to freedom of expression upholds the rights of all to express their views and opinions freely. It is essentially a right which should be promoted to the maximum extent possible given its critical role in democracy and public participation in political life. There may be certain extreme forms of expression which need to be curtailed for the protection of other human rights. Limiting freedom of expression in such situations is always a fine balancing act. One particular form of expression which is banned in some countries is â€œhate speechâ€.

There may be some views which incite intolerance or hatred between groups. This raises the debate about whether such hate speech, as it is known, should be restricted. An extreme example of this is the use of the mass media to promote genocide or racially-motivated attacks, such as the role played by Radio-TÃ©lÃ©vision Libre des Milles Collines in the Rwandan genocide in 1994. In some countries hate speech laws have been introduced to outlaw such expression. There is a fine balance between upholding the right to freedom of expression and protecting other human rights. The success of such laws has often been questionable and one of the consequences has been to drive hate speech underground. While it may be necessary to ban certain extreme forms of hate speech and certainly to make its use by the state prohibited, parallel measures involving the promotion of a pluralistic media are essential to give voice to counter viewpoints.
source: hrea.org

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #58 on:** March 06, 2009, 05:24:29 AM »

I have not read any case, in Supreme court precedings having successful cases like this.

The statement maybe suggesting, but it is an opinion. Same as Muslims, stepping on american flags.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #59 on:** March 06, 2009, 05:38:15 AM »

Important to the realization of real democracy is the right to self expression. In this case, it is an opinion expressed on a bus. Malicious or not, it maybe a fundamentalist view, but it is a view. This could be interpreted colloqiually, as what you often do. The same as we allow Muslims to criticize our Christ. The same, as other Christian denomination call our Blessed Virgin Mary, a pagan goddess. Our society is very varied and dynamic composed of sectors with different political and social framework.

If you call a muslim a terrorist, he would sue you, not of religious discrimination, but of libel or oral defamation.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #60 on:** March 06, 2009, 05:47:03 AM »

Let me make my point simple Lorenzo. If I say that religion is the root cause of war, would that bring me to jail? I guess not.

If someone say, that it was because of religion why the twin towers were bomb, it is a crime?
I guess not.

Religion flies you into buildings implies that religion causes people to be harmful.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

glacier_71 · « **Reply #61 on:** March 06, 2009, 06:13:47 AM »

Black Pastor jailed for excercising First Amendment rights
by Michele Combs on February 23, 2009

Americans' religious rights and First Amendment rights continue to be eroded as evidenced by the jailing of a black pastor from a Berkeley, California church last week. He was the first person convicted -- two months ago -- under Oakland's law preventing pro-life protesters from coming within 8 feet of anyone entering an abortion clinic.

The Union City pastor, Walter Hoye, received a $1,000 fine, 30 days in jail (although in the future pro-lifers can be actually be put in jail for up to two years) and 3 years' probation. This courageous pastor told the judge: "I believe that an unjust law is no law at all." Pastor Hoye even answered Alameda Superior Court Judge Hing's question of whether or not he would abide by an order to stay 100 yards away from the Oakland abortion clinic with a principled "No."

Pro-life activists called the anti-constitutional Oakland City Council law passed in 2007 an intrusion on their freedom of speech. Pastor Hoye -- as do pro-life demonstrators all over America -- passes out literature outside abortion clinics and sometimes carries a sign saying: "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you!" Pastor Hoye asked women about to kill their unborn babies before they go into the abortion clinics: "May I talk to you about alternatives to the clinic?"

And for these caring actions by a caring pro-life pastor, he is now sentenced to go to jail. The head of the National Black Pro-life Congress said about Pastor Hoye's actions at the abortion clinic: "He never laid hands on anyone," Unless Christians in America wake up soon, their religious rights will be completely eroded.

ANALYZE THIS. JAILED!!!

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #62 on:** March 06, 2009, 06:19:01 AM »

What was the decision of the court?

Religious discrimination is valuing or treating a person or group differently because of what they do or do not believe.

Roy,

The Westboro Baptist Church was found guilty and was ordered to pay $11 Million worth of damages.

http://www.transworldnews.com/NewsStory.aspx?id=26810&cat=13

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #63 on:** March 06, 2009, 06:26:54 AM »

Black Pastor jailed for excercising First Amendment rights
by Michele Combs on February 23, 2009

Americans' religious rights and First Amendment rights continue to be eroded as evidenced by the jailing of a black pastor from a Berkeley, California church last week. He was the first person convicted -- two months ago -- under Oakland's law preventing pro-life protesters from coming within 8 feet of anyone entering an abortion clinic.

The Union City pastor, Walter Hoye, received a $1,000 fine, 30 days in jail (although in the future pro-lifers can be actually be put in jail for up to two years) and 3 years' probation. This courageous pastor told the judge: "I believe that an unjust law is no law at all." Pastor Hoye even answered Alameda Superior Court Judge Hing's question of whether or not he would abide by an order to stay 100 yards away from the Oakland abortion clinic with a principled "No."

Pro-life activists called the anti-constitutional Oakland City Council law passed in 2007 an intrusion on their freedom of speech. Pastor Hoye -- as do pro-life demonstrators all over America -- passes out literature outside abortion clinics and sometimes carries a sign saying: "Jesus loves you and your baby. Let us help you!" Pastor Hoye asked women about to kill their unborn babies before they go into the abortion clinics: "May I talk to you about alternatives to the clinic?"

And for these caring actions by a caring pro-life pastor, he is now sentenced to go to jail. The head of the National Black Pro-life Congress said about Pastor Hoye's actions at the abortion clinic: "He never laid hands on anyone," Unless Christians in America wake up soon, their religious rights will be completely eroded.

ANALYZE THIS. JAILED!!!

Glacier, this is an interesting article. Thank You for posting this.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #64 on:** March 06, 2009, 06:32:31 AM »

The point of the story is that within the United States of America, we have laws that are set in place to protect and assess the sensitivity of religion, race, ethnicity and sexual preference, sexual lifestyle etc. Despite our personal prejudices, the law is the law.

We have constitutional rights to convey our freedom of expression, but such a right varies to the extremity of said expression and thus, preventing one's 'freedom of expression' from bypassing and stepping over another individual's constitutional rights.

Again, legislation of such varies from state to state, here in the United States; be in in Oklahoma, New Jersey, or California (as in the case that Glacier pointed out).

The point of the matter is that there are limitations to what one can and cannot do.

The presence of the ACLU and other Civil Rights Watch Dogs are for the purposes of catching such grievances and taking proper legal action.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

buwadsanga · « **Reply #65 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:40:50 AM »

cant you see the big difference on the bus add?

science can only fly you to the moon but beleivers only on buildings? where? i'm sure these buidings are erected in heaven.

well, this is pure and simple abuse of free will from our Creator mainly from the communists minds.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #66 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:47:50 AM »

I believe in a secular society, and respect between christians, muslims, hindus, agnostics, athiests, comes from inter-demographic harmony. We should have the right to privately express our religious ideals in churches or on specific forums/channels of communique.

It shouldn't be on public edifices, and or transportation. The point is, there is a clear difference between talking, communicating and respectfully sharing information, as compared to harshly degrading another's point of view and religious beliefs and or religiousity.

There is malice in such a message.
And it is conveying more disrespect and hostility than bridging understanding and cooperation.

Antagonism never helped heal wounds, instead of unifying a secular society, such actions and methods of communication will only distance and placate walls--divisions.

Yours With Respect,
Bran Lorenzo

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #67 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:47:53 AM »

Have you even analyzed the story very well? He was of course jailed because he was using his religious affiliation as a sign of his expression against abortion?

Where is religious discrimination there? huh?

LOL. Yes Lorenzo, ordinance is ordinance. If abortion maybe legal there, obstructing someone to commt such is punishable by the law.

Just take this as an example. When it is legal to buy pott in amsterdam, protesting infront of a pott house would surely land you in jail.

Really funny anaylsis you have.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #68 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:51:19 AM »

That pastor should have placed his protest in the right avenue, that is, protesting in front of the city council, which was legalizing abortion.

That was an instrusion of private rights.

That was invoking religious doctrines, in a non-secular case.

hehehe

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #69 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:51:47 AM »

Roy, Your examples apply for Holland, alone.

The laws and regulations we have here in the United States are different from those in Europe. Europe is a bit more liberal.

The United States, still is quite conservative.

In order for us to understand how said scenario will manifest in the United States, one needs to have a firm bearing on the constitutional processes and laws of the United States.

Thank You for sharing your well written input. As i do enjoy learning from different points of views. I hope that our conversation in here was productive.

Your Brother In Christ,
Bran Lorenzo

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #70 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:53:58 AM »

That pastor should have placed his protest in the right avenue, that is, protesting in front of the city council, legalizing abortion.

That was an instrusion of private rights.

That was invoking religious doctrines, in a non-secular case.

hehehe

One can make a debate that he was expressing his Freedom of Expression, Roy.
hehe, this scenario, am sure, is in topic debate in Law Schools in the United States.

As i said earlier, am just a simple med student. Perhaps more Law Students in the Philippines and/or the US can shed some more light?

Id like to hear from an attorney's/law student's point of view.
(no offense to you, Roy, I do however, still respect your views and cherish your intellectual viewpoint) hehe

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #71 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:54:51 AM »

No, you do not get the point Lorenzo.

Why he was jailed? This was because of obstruction and instrusion of private rights.

If someone out there, who wanted to make abortion secretly (which is aparrently legal in that place ), such protest action is an invasion of their private rights.

Tell the the merits of the case.

The case actually contradicted your claim lorenzo.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #72 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:57:02 AM »

Hahaha..

This cannot be cited as a freedom of expression Lorenzo. He was putting people to shame.

This case has nothing to do with the previous topic on religious discrimination.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #73 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:57:43 AM »

The courts made a decision, Roy, that it was an intrusion of private rights.
But the pastor and many others that are in his side, would claim that he was expressing his Right to Freedom of Expression and Freedom of Speech.

Like I said, this is a rather excellent topic for debate in a legal course.

Roy, I respect your view point. And that is I will not engage personal remarks.

Roy, we were not discussing abortion. Please stick to the topic.

you are quite the spicy individual. lol

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #74 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:58:34 AM »

haha, Roy, please, you're not going to change my view.

Let us end this in agreeing that we both disagree. hahaha

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #75 on:** March 06, 2009, 08:59:10 AM »

Just simple logic would lead you to a better answer Lorenzo and besides, should you have sought legal advice, then you should not have posted that case here, and just directly ask a lawyer, right?

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #76 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:00:24 AM »

Roy, if I ever would seek legal advice, I will make sure to hire the best of the best that graduated form Harvard Law.

that or I could send you an email. and maybe you could offer me a small tidbit. hahaha

Peace.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #77 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:01:32 AM »

Let us stick to the main proposition Lorenzo. You have mentioned that this comment " Religion flies you into buildings" would land you in american jails.

How in any case, you would connect this comment to the case cited by glacier?

hahaha.. The right to self expression?

This is entirely differently. Did he abuse private rights when he made this comment (religion flies you into buildings)? I think not.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

Lorenzo · « **Reply #78 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:01:41 AM »

Just simple logic would lead you to a better answer Lorenzo and besides, should you have sought legal advice, then you should not have posted that case here, and just directly ask a lawyer, right?

I posted because its food for thought.

My head is reading biochemistry, physiology, anatomy, science all day. Treating patients.

Reading about politics and something un-medical related is a release, actually. lol

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0

ayessa · « **Reply #79 on:** March 06, 2009, 09:01:56 AM »

Your case about the pastor is even irrelevant.

Linkback: https://tubagbohol.mikeligalig.com/index.php?topic=18352.0